|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2013 |
|
|
Court found the applicant disclosed a cause of action and remitted the matter for merits hearing; striking out was improper.
Cause of action — disclosure; Cause of action — question of fact; Tenancy — oral or implied tenancy; Pleadings — non-disclosure vs merits; Striking out — inappropriate where factual issues require hearing; Remittal to different chairman.
|
28 February 2013 |
|
Appellant's unsupported oral claim failed; documentary evidence and locus inspection supported respondent's ownership.
Land law — ownership dispute; evaluation of evidence — uncorroborated oral claims contrasted with documentary exhibits and independent witness testimony; locus in quo visit — appellate restraint where findings are supported by evidence.
|
28 February 2013 |
|
Appellant failed to prove land ownership; court upheld lower courts’ factual findings based on documents, witnesses and locus inspection.
Land dispute – ownership – burden of proof on balance of probabilities – evaluation of documentary and witness evidence – weight of locus in quo inspection – appellate review of factual findings.
|
28 February 2013 |
|
A plaintiff whose suit dismissed for want of prosecution and whose restoration fails is barred from bringing a fresh suit.
Civil procedure – res judicata – requirement that former suit be heard and finally decided on merits – dismissal for want of prosecution is not a decision on merits; Order IX Rule 9(1) – bar to fresh suit where prior suit dismissed for default and restoration application failed; Advocates Act – procedural requirement to cite specific statutory provision when alleging violation; non‑citation renders objection incompetent.
|
27 February 2013 |
|
An appellant’s guilty plea cannot stand where material medical evidence contradicts the plea and the conviction is on a different charge.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Whether plea was unequivocal – Effect of contradictory medical report (PF3) on plea. Criminal procedure – Conviction on a different/lesser offence to which accused did not plead – safety of conviction. Criminal Procedure Act, s.360(1) – appeals barred from convictions based on guilty pleas; exceptions where plea is imperfect, ambiguous, mistaken or facts do not disclose offence (Laurence Mpinga principle). Relief – quashing conviction, setting aside sentence, discretion against ordering retrial; release unless lawfully detained.
|
27 February 2013 |
|
Extension refused for delay caused by counsel’s negligence; parallel leave-to-appeal application struck out as abuse of process.
Civil procedure – extension of time – section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – applicant must show sufficient cause for each day of delay; advocate’s negligence not good cause. Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – Order IX Rule 8, duty of plaintiff to follow up file and demonstrate diligence. Appellate procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – requirement to seek leave within statutory time or apply for extension under Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Procedure – parallel proceedings and review applications – pursuing review in Court of Appeal while filing parallel High Court application is an abuse of process and renders application incompetent.
|
26 February 2013 |
|
Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt where trial judge misconstrued witness evidence and prosecution failed to prove manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – manslaughter – whether fatal shot resulted from accidental discharge during scuffle. Evidence – appellate review of trial judge’s assessment and mischaracterisation of witness testimony. Burden of proof – benefit of doubt where prosecution fails to exclude accidental possibility. Trial procedure – failure to tender sketch map and alleged contradictions between prosecution witnesses.
|
26 February 2013 |
|
Defamation claims fail absent proof the allegedly defamatory words were published to someone other than the plaintiff.
Defamation — requirement of publication to a third party; distinction between criminal conviction for threatening words and civil defamation; burden of proof on publication and damages; insufficiency of uncorroborated plaintiff testimony without independent witnesses.
|
26 February 2013 |
|
An administratrix is entitled to deceased's bank funds on production of grant; excessive, unproven damages must be reduced and proper interest awarded.
Estates law – administratrix’s rights – effect of grant: grant vests estate rights in administratrix; bank must release funds upon receipt of grant. Civil damages – assessment: special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; general damages are discretionary but must be reasonably quantified with reasons. Interest – compensation for deprivation of use of money: courts may award interest (different from general damages); commercial interest can be applied to sums withheld. Double recovery – interest and general damages are distinct forms of compensation; award may stand if not duplicative and is reasonable.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out because the extracted decree lacked the judgment date, violating Order XX Rule 7 CPC.
Civil procedure – Decree date – Order XX Rule 7 CPC – Extracted decree must bear date of judgment – Decree comes into existence on pronouncement date – Non-compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. Court may raise procedural defects suo motu; no costs order where defect so raised.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
An appeal accompanied by an extracted decree lacking the judgment's date is incompetent and must be struck out.
Civil procedure — Order XX Rule 7 — Date of decree — Decree must bear date of judgment pronouncement — Extracted decree lacking that date renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; Court may raise the defect suo motu; no order as to costs where defect so raised.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out for non‑compliance with Order XX Rule 7 requiring decree to bear the judgment date.
Civil procedure – Order XX Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code – extracted decree must bear date of pronouncement; effect of non‑compliance – appeal rendered incompetent and struck out; court may raise jurisdictional defects suo motu; no order as to costs where defect raised by court.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
The applicant purchaser of disputed land titles is a necessary intervenor and must be joined; pleadings to be amended.
Civil procedure – Intervention/joinder – Applicant purchaser of company assets with competing claim to certificates of title; necessary party to avoid multiplicity of suits; amendment of pleadings ordered; scheduling order amendment deferred.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
Visual identification at night, supported by prior acquaintance and proximity, can suffice to uphold an armed robbery conviction.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification evidence – application of Waziri Amani guidelines (time, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance) – adequacy of lantern light and proximity to remove danger of mistaken identity. Criminal procedure – reading of charge – no requirement to read charge immediately before trial if previously read. Evidence – credibility and relatedness of prosecution witnesses – failure to raise at trial weakens appellate contention.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
An interlocutory refusal to admit documents is not appealable under Regulation 22; appeal struck out and matter remitted.
Land law – procedure – interlocutory rulings – Regulation 22 proviso: interlocutory orders not finally determining the case are not appealable; procedural non‑compliance and admissibility of documents to be determined by tribunal.
|
22 February 2013 |
|
Application for attachment before judgment struck out for citing wrong procedural provisions.
Civil Procedure – attachment before judgment – correct provision is Order XXI Rule 6(1)(a),(b) – mis‑citation of rules renders application incompetent; section 95 (inherent powers) cannot override clear procedural rules.
|
21 February 2013 |
|
Objection proceedings misfiled under a transferee-execution provision are nullities; trial court must identify matrimonial assets from its record.
Civil procedure – execution – Order 21 r.24 Civil Procedure Code – applicability to transferee Court only – misapplication renders proceedings nullity. Matrimonial law – divorce decree ordering equal division – duty to identify matrimonial assets – failure to identify leaves issue undetermined. High Court powers – calling up record suo motu to direct trial court to determine issues left undecided from evidence on record.
|
21 February 2013 |
|
Whether the appellant is vicariously liable for defamatory statements by its officer and whether damages awarded were excessive.
Defamation – publication at a public meeting – sufficiency of pleading to cover oral publication – vicarious liability of employer for defamatory utterances by municipal officer – assessment and reduction of general damages for limited publication.
|
21 February 2013 |
|
An expired temporary injunction cannot prevent eviction; the injunction-holder must apply for renewal to preserve status quo.
Land law – interim injunctions – duration and renewal of temporary injunctions under Order XXXVII Rules 2 & 3, Civil Procedure Code – lapse of injunction and duty to apply for extension – eviction after expiry of injunction; abuse of court process vs statutory limits on injunctions.
|
21 February 2013 |
|
A typographical misdescription of a party’s name is a curable defect; amendment ordered and objection overruled.
Locus standi — misdescription of party name; Preliminary objection in limine litis; Clerical/typographical error — curable defect; Amendment powers — sections 97 and 17 Civil Procedure Code; Section 96 — limited to clerical mistakes in judgments.
|
21 February 2013 |
|
Affidavit containing legal argument and defective verification breached Order XIX r.3(1), so the supporting application was struck out.
Civil procedure — Affidavits — Order XIX r.3(1) CPC — Affidavits must be confined to facts within deponent’s knowledge; statements of belief on interlocutory applications must state grounds; verification must specify which parts are on knowledge or on information and disclose sources — Defective affidavit may render supporting application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
20 February 2013 |
|
Waiting for judgment copies does not excuse delay in filing a notice of appeal; extension denied, certificate unnecessary.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – whether awaiting copies of judgment justifies delay; Appeal procedure – notice of intention to appeal – filing within 30 days; Copies of judgment/ proceedings necessary for drafting grounds and computing time to file appeal, but not prerequisite for lodging notice; Certificate to appeal rendered unnecessary where extension refused.
|
19 February 2013 |
|
Waiting for judgment copies did not justify the applicant’s delay in filing a notice of appeal; extension refused.
Appellate procedure — extension of time to file notice of appeal — notice of appeal due within 30 days — copies of judgment/record not prerequisite to lodging notice — role of judgment copies in framing grounds and computing time for substantive appeal — refusal of extension and costs.
|
19 February 2013 |
|
Container terminal held liable for theft/damage; plaintiff awarded Tshs.50,000,000 and Tshs.30,000,000; demurrage dismissed.
• Carrier/terminal liability – theft and damage to containerised goods while in terminal custody – terminal held liable.
• Evidence – collection note and joint verification sufficient for inventory/verification; absence of receipts weakens valuation claim.
• Damages – compensatory and general damages awarded; punitive damages and contractual interest refused.
• Demurrage – demurrage counterclaim dismissed; release of undamaged goods ordered free of demurrage.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
Ex‑parte judgment for unpaid transport invoices upheld on documentary admissions; court reduced unproven 30% commercial interest to 21% and awarded costs.
Commercial law – recovery of unpaid invoices for hire services; ex‑parte proof – standard of proof (balance of probabilities); documentary admissions – invoices and letters as acknowledgment of debt; interest – court adjusts claimed commercial rate where unproven; costs awarded to successful plaintiff.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
Preliminary objection overruled: res judicata not established, plaint not incurably defective, court functus officio on statutory‑notice point.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objection; res judicata — requirements for applicability (same matter, same parties, competent court, final decision); pleadings — Order VI r.14 signature requirement — breach fatal only if miscarriage of justice; Government Proceedings Act s.6(2) — notice requirement; functus officio — re‑litigation of points already decided.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
Preliminary objection overruled: prior petition was not final, plaint signature defect (if any) not fatal, 90‑day notice issue already decided.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Res judicata – prior petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction not a final decision; res judicata inapplicable. Civil procedure – Pleadings – Order VI r.14 – requirement of signatures – non-compliance not fatal absent miscarriage of justice. Government Proceedings – s.6(2) – 90-day notice – issue previously decided; doctrine of functus officio bars re-determination. Doctrine of functus officio – court cannot re-open matters it has finally decided.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause under section 14(1); extension refused and application dismissed with costs.
Limitation Act, s.14(1) – extension of time – requires sufficient/reasonable cause and explanation for each day of delay. Procedural diligence – applicants must act promptly; residence or need for internal corporate approval insufficient without explanation. Civil procedure – court’s discretion to relax time limits will not be exercised where delay is inordinate and unexplained.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
|
17 February 2013 |
|
Applications were struck out: appeals from Primary Courts need a certificate on a point of law, and procedural defects or time‑bar render applications invalid.
Procedural law – appeals from Primary Courts require High Court certificate on point of law; non‑citation of enabling statutory provisions is fatal; extension to file notice of appeal does not permit out‑of‑time review; time‑bar and abuse of process grounds for striking out applications.
|
15 February 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed: malicious damage proved; defence of TANROADS demolition unproven, sentence and compensation upheld.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Proof of willful and unlawful destruction – Ownership established by sale agreement – Defence of lawful demolition under statutory authority must be proved by documentary evidence – Sentence within permissible range.
|
15 February 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed: malicious damage proven; TANROADS demolition defence unsupported by evidence.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Elements: willful and unlawful damage must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence – Ownership: sale agreement and witnesses establish complainant's title to the property. Defence of lawful demolition – Failure to produce TANROADS notice or proof of road reserve undermines defence. Sentence – Within statutory limits and not excessive.
|
15 February 2013 |
|
High Court set aside lower tribunals' orders and allowed appellant to build a fence leaving a three‑foot public passage.
Land disputes – unsurveyed squatter area – necessity of locus in quo and practical solution to preserve access (uchochoro). Ward Tribunal function – secure peace and harmony; duty to mediate and consider oral agreements and local circumstances. Execution of tribunal orders – execution should not proceed where clear irregularities require revision. High Court – exercise of appellate and inherent powers to set aside lower tribunals' decisions and fashion equitable remedy.
|
15 February 2013 |
|
Allegations of fraudulent title acquisition preclude interim injunction preventing rectification of the land register.
Land law – temporary injunction – rectification of land register – allegations of fraud in acquisition of certificate of title – survey plan withdrawn – title void ab initio – suitability of interim relief.
|
14 February 2013 |
|
Court overruled objection and allowed revision where magistrate required contested sum as deposit, constituting material irregularity.
Revision — applicability of section 79(1) Civil Procedure Code; interlocutory vs final orders — section 43(2) Magistrates Courts Act; requirement to deposit contested amount as condition to appear — material irregularity and abuse of discretion; revisional jurisdiction where no appeal lies.
|
13 February 2013 |
|
Primary Courts lack jurisdiction over registered land ownership; failure to decide jurisdiction is an abdication of judicial duty.
Jurisdiction – Primary Courts – No jurisdiction over registered land ownership (Magistrates Courts Act s.18(1)); Land Act s.167 – allocation of land jurisdiction; Probate proceedings – limited to appointment of administrators and not conclusive on registered land ownership; Failure to decide jurisdiction – abdication of judicial duty; Remedy – quashing proceedings beyond jurisdiction.
|
13 February 2013 |
|
Appellant’s failure to prove payment and to perform contractual obligations justified termination and dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Land law – sale agreement – failure to pay outstanding balance – condition precedent not met – agreement terminated; Evidence – burden to prove payment – absence of documentary or witness proof; Civil procedure – death of a party – amendment of memorandum; Appeal – appellate review of tribunal's factual findings.
|
12 February 2013 |
|
A Court of Appeal dismissal of a joinder application operates as res judicata, precluding the same High Court representative application.
Civil procedure – representative proceedings – joinder of representatives – effect of Court of Appeal dismissal of joinder application; res judicata vs subjudice; procedural dismissal for failure to file written submissions under Court of Appeal Rules.
|
8 February 2013 |
|
Court of Appeal’s finding that sale by administratrix was valid binds High Court; defendants must surrender possession and monetary adjustments ordered.
Property sale by administratrix – validity of sale; binding effect of Court of Appeal decision; jurisdiction to continue trial despite probate proceedings; entitlement to vacant possession; rent accounting and heirs’ monetary distribution.
|
8 February 2013 |
|
Ex parte proof established defendant received loans and advances, breached supply agreement, and owes Tshs.97M plus damages and interest.
Commercial law – Loan and advances tied to supply obligations – Ex parte proof in default proceedings – Breach of supply agreement by cessation of deliveries – Recovery of principal, general damages, interest and costs.
|
8 February 2013 |
|
Defamatory complaints by the defendants caused the plaintiff's removal and entitle him to special and general damages.
Defamation/injurious falsehood – corporate complainants’ malicious communications to government officials – causation of suspension and removal of public officer – absence of privilege – award of special and general damages.
|
7 February 2013 |
|
Plaintiff offered sufficient evidence (testimony and letter) to require the defendant to answer; suit held competent.
Civil procedure — No case to answer — Test is whether plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to put defendant to defence; oral testimony from managing director and contemporaneous letter held adequate. Competency objections (receivership; lack of board resolution) must be timely raised or will be dismissed if previously overruled. Court may consider late submissions in discretion.
|
6 February 2013 |
|
A defence filed beyond the mandatory extension is incompetent and may be expunged, enabling an ex parte hearing.
Civil procedure — pleadings — competence of written statement of defence — computation and extension of time under Order VIII r.1(2) CPC (as amended) — proviso limits total extension — late defence incompetent and expunged — ex parte proceedings under O. VIII r.14(2)(b).
|
5 February 2013 |
|
A court may strike opinion-based paragraphs from an affidavit but may permit status-quo injunctive relief alongside prerogative orders.
Administrative law – validity of supporting affidavits – Order XIX r.3 CPC – striking out opinionated paragraphs; Public law remedies – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – permissibility of combining conservatory/private relief (maintenance of status quo) with public law remedies.
|
5 February 2013 |
|
Reported
A paragraph of the applicant's affidavit was struck for opinion without disclosed basis; courts may grant status‑quo relief with prerogative orders.
• Administrative law – prerogative orders – certiorari, mandamus, prohibition – permissibility of seeking injunctive/conservatory relief (maintenance of status quo) together with prerogative orders.
• Civil procedure – affidavits – Order XIX r.3 CPC – striking out affidavit material that states opinion without disclosure of basis.
• Newspapers Act – executive ban on publication – subject to judicial review by prerogative remedies.
|
5 February 2013 |
|
A supporting affidavit’s opinion-only paragraph may be struck out; status‑quo injunctive relief can accompany prerogative orders.
Administrative law – judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – availability of injunctive/conservatory relief (maintenance of status quo) in proceedings for prerogative orders. Civil procedure – affidavits – Order XIX r.3 CPC – statements of opinion must disclose basis; offending paragraphs may be struck out while retaining the rest of the affidavit. Newspapers – executive order banning publication – challenge by prerogative remedies.
|
5 February 2013 |
|
Court struck a defective paragraph from the applicant's affidavit and allowed status‑quo relief to be joined with prerogative orders.
Judicial review; Newspapers Act ban; affidavit requirements under Order XIX r.3 CPC — distinguishing facts from opinion; striking defective affidavit paragraphs; prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) may be joined with conservatory/injunctive relief (status quo).
|
5 February 2013 |
|
Acknowledgment or part payment can revive a time‑barred debt; lack of board resolution is not a preliminary point of law.
Limitation Act – contractual claims – acknowledgment and part payment revive limitation under s.27(3); Corporate capacity – absence of board/company resolution to institute suit requires evidence and is not a preliminary point of law.
|
5 February 2013 |
|
Acknowledgment or last payment restarts limitation period; absence of board resolution is an evidential issue, not a preliminary point of law.
Limitation of actions – contractual claims – acknowledgment or last payment under s.27(3) of the Law of Limitation Act restarts limitation period. Part payments and correspondence — effect on accrual of cause of action. Corporate capacity to sue – requirement of company/board resolution is evidential and not a pure preliminary point of law. Preliminary objections – cannot raise facts requiring evidence to be resolved as points of law.
|
5 February 2013 |
|
Appellate tribunal erred; occupants were invitees and Ward Tribunal’s decision restoring clan ownership is reinstated.
Land law – clan land – succession and ownership; Occupation – invitee use versus village allocation; Substantial justice – irregularities not fatal absent failure of justice; Appellate review – deference to trial findings of fact and credibility, especially after locus visit; Limitation/possession – prolonged occupation by invitees does not confer ownership.
|
4 February 2013 |